[feannigvogten]

You weren't able to clarify your reasons behind standing by your slander on one of the Salaf. To refresh memories, our discussion started in the following thread:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post698221

Walaikum as sallam wr wb.

I just read that thread and the statement i made there was flawed when later on i confirmed it from some Shayookh.

Dr. Saheb, for you honesty and sincerity in accepting your error.

However, there are a number of statements that you have made on this forum, which appear very serious. Through husn ad-dhann, I personally believe you would not make such statements through your own ijitahad, but rather you have done taqleed of Salafi scholars who are generally prone to unearth, exaggerate and propagate lies and slanders that were dismissed by the Ummah long ago, and have remained buried since.

One example is your statement that the Jumhoor have regarded Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani, the teacher of many of greats of the Salaf, as a “Kazzab”. If you are not qualified for ijtihad, and are unable to back it up with clear daleel, with analysis of all the statements of the Jumhoor, then by your own standards you are not entitled to make such a judgement, nor mention it anywhere. Otherwise, you are guilty of the most horrendous slander that has spread through your efforts on this forum, and one which will inevitably come back to haunt you, unless your repent urgently.

Nothing less than detailed and comprehensive daleel should suffice yourself in making such a weighty judgement, and then to even propagate it. Please provide the detailed and comprehensive daleel that you have analysed and based your judgement on that the Jumhoor have regarded Imam Muhammad as-Shaybani as a “Kazzab” (flagrant liar).

You disappeared for many months, until you reared your head in another thread where you decided to 'publish' another error-riddled pseudo-intellectual musing of yours. So I raised the issue again:

Dr. Ati, since your error-riddled posts on sunniforum alone could potentially be a cause of eternal damnation for yourself, I advise, for damage limitation purposes, not to invite laypeople to your uncensored meanderings elsewhere.

For example, Allah will judge how many people you will be held responsible for introducing to the following slander against one of the Salaf:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post698221

Since I'm assuming you are still against taqleed (accepting the finding of a school of Mujtahids without examining and assessing the Daleel), you should have at your fingertips the research with which you arrived at the slanderous claim above, and which should not have taken you more than four months to fetch.

Unless that is you expected all of us to adopt taqleed of yourself, while you took time out to recap on, or reconstruct, your research.

As far as that statement regarding Muhammad bin Hassan al Shaybani ra is concerned , i stand on that.
It is no disregard towards him or his personality at all. If someone says that Imam Sufyan Thawri ra used to do Tadlees does not mean that he is degrading him or does it?

Jarh in Hadith is like a sacred document and it is only presented whenever situation necessitates it. I only raised the issue of weakness of Muhammad bin Hassan al shaybani in Hadith when he was quoted as a narrator. I really don't need any research to present the proof for what i said. I just wanted to avoid hurting the emotions of the readers by avoiding that. If you want it then open a thread on "the status of Muhammad bin Hassan al shaybani in ilm ul Hadith" and you will find me there.

There is a vast chasm of difference between 'Tadlees' and the statement, "The jumhoor (majority of) Muhadditheen has classified him as a "Kazzab" (flagrant liar)"

The former can be the Ijitihad of a qualified Mujtahid. The latter is a slander especially if it comes from someone truly unqualified who demonstrates, within a rapid half-life, a penchant for monumental blunders.

You continue to stand unrepentantly by this enormity of a slander, labelled as a 'sacred document'.

I will soon open a new thread as per your advice.

However, you disappeared again for another few months, this time probably as a result of a ban.

So here we are. Before we continue, please clarify whether you still stand unrepentantly by your statement: "The jumhoor (majority of) Muhadditheen has classified him as a "Kazzab" (flagrant liar)"

[MyOwnStyle]

Clever timing you have chosen for this topic. I did not disappear anywhere. I had asked you to open a thread on the issue if you wanted to discuss it and you have opened it today so i am here. I have already clarified the nature of this topic to you. Imam Muhammad Bin Hassan al shaybani rahimahullah is respectable for me as a scholar of the Salaf. It was in the thread which you have quoted where he was mentioned as a narrator of a narration and hence it necessitated to present his status as a narrator. If you think that you can gain something productive from this discussion then i am ready to take part in it. The stance which i will try to substantiate will be that "Imam Muhammad Bin Hassan Al Shaybani ra is majrooh fil Hadeeth and there is jarh Muffasir about him from too many Muhaditheen which makes him a dhaeef fil hadeeth and majrooh fil hadeeth". Also make it sure that the the criticism of Muhaditheen against him should be taken as criticism as jarh fil riwayah instead of criticism on his person.

weak and criticized is not the same as "liar".

[RgtrsKfR]

I have decided to refrain from a discussion on this issue as i think that i can invest my time in some productive tasks which will benefit me and my fellow Muslims. If brother SeekerOfGuidance still wants to discuss it , we can discuss it in person through emails.

[pIp83Uns]

I have decided to refrain from a discussion on this issue as i think that i can invest my time in some productive issues which will benefit me and my fellow Muslims. If brother SeekerOfGuidance still wants to discuss it , we can discuss it in person through emails.

That is a good choice, brother. Just for my peace of mind, I would like to know whether you will try to prove that he is Kadhdhab or Dha'eef in those mails?

[Annevecenqp]

Please don't attempt to detract from the topic of the discussion i.e. an alleged slander by you.

I claim that your statement:

"...Jamhoor Muhaditheen has classified Muhammad Bin Hassan as Kadhaab"

is a slander.

Please answer the following very simple question to resolve this issue which requires a very simple yes or no answer:

Question: Is your statement above true or false?

Evading this simple yes or no answer will indicate that you yourself doubt the veracity of your own statement. None of your precious time needs to be wasted. A simple yes or no answer should suffice.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post694417

Kidding ? The Jarah on a narrator is on his Adalat and his words whenever quoting anyone is unreliable. So whatever he narrates from Imam Abu Hanifa is rejected.

The narration you have presented is without any chain and so is rejected. Their is Jarah e Muffasir and Maqbool on Muhammad Bin Hassan. Its a foremost usool of Jarah al Tad'eel that Shaadh Aqwaal are rejected if they contradict with the opinion of the Jamhoor and Jamhoor Muhaditheen has classified Muhammad Bin Hassan as Kadhaab. Imam Shafi has himself criticized him in strong words many times. (see aadaab ush Shafi Wa Manaqibhu and al U'm or ask me to provide sayings of Al Shafi' about Muhammad bin Hassan). Moreover , Shaykh Ul Islam in Minhaaj us sunnah has rejected the claim that Imam Shafi' has been studying with Al Shaybaani. I would substantiate all this if you ask for it.

A detail of Imam Shafi' Rahimahullah vies about Muhammad Bin Hassan can be read here http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/displ...=389&pid=81341 . I am ready to translate this chapter of Aadab ush Shafi' but you might not feel much comfortable with it.

[ProomoSam]

That is a good choice, brother. Just for my peace of mind, I would like to know whether you will try to prove that he is Kadhdhab or Dha'eef in those mails?

The Muhaditheen wheh do jarh of a narrator use different words. For example , Imam Bukhari ra would express his jarh mostly by calling the narrator "matrook ul hadeeth or fihi nazar or Laisa inda na Qawee". Yahya ibn ma'een ra would use the phrase "laisa bi shayan" (He was nothing). This does not mean that he literally regarding the narrator nothing. In the case of Imam Muhammad bin Hassan al Shaybani ra the phrase used by many muhaditheen has been "kadhabun" but it should not be taken as if he was a liar in general sense but this criticism is limited to him as a narrator.

[Ayyfjicg]

Please don't attempt to detract from the topic of the discussion i.e. an alleged slander by you.

I claim that your statement:

"...Jamhoor Muhaditheen has classified Muhammad Bin Hassan as Kadhaab"

is a slander.

Please answer the following very simple question to resolve this issue which requires a very simple yes or no answer:

Question: Is your statement above true or false?

Evading this simple yes or no answer will indicate that you yourself doubt the veracity of your own statement. None of your precious time needs to be wasted. A simple yes or no answer should suffice.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post694417

I see.You want to apply the jarh wal ta'deel to day to day business and want to get me into an emotional trap through it. I would refrain from any discussion on this topic on a public forum as i see no purpose of a discussion like this on a public forum. You can celebrate your victory.

[juyrett]

Can someone clarify which of the muhaddithin called Imam Muhammad a liar, if true, and also what were the reasons and how the ahnaf have dealt with it.

I think its unfair to pick on dr. ati as he is a follower of the mujaddid ibn abdul wahhab who are a misunderstood group that have suffered from a lot of propaganda against them from some of the greatest ulema of that time.
These are standard wahhabi views which are deemed good by ulema. Therefore we should leave them to it and not fall for the vicious propaganda.

[SaLifHoq]

Can someone clarify which of the muhaddithin called Imam Muhammad a liar, if true, and also what were the reasons and how the ahnaf have dealt with it.

Hanafis' Response:

Long answer:
If you have a look at the intro of Abu Ghuddah's edition of al-Laknawi's al-Ta`liq al-Mumajjad, he discusses this issue. Also, have a look at the sections unacceptable narrator criticism in al-Laknawi's al-Raf` wa al-Takmil. A quick google search should lead you to the pdf's of these books online.

Short answer:
The principle "jarh mufasssar is given precedence over ta`dil" has certain nuances and parameters regarding which one should be aware. If jarh stems from sectarian bias or personal rivalry, it is not given consideration. Furthermore, if the narrator in question is a widely accepted imam and those who praised him are many and those who have criticize him are few, then in such a case, the criticism is not given consideration.

- The rivalry between ahl al-hadith and ahl al-ra'y is well known.
- Some of the muhaddithin were under the impression that Abu Hanifah and his followers rejected sound ahadith for their own opinion and hence, considered them to be misguided; this misunderstanding on their part lead them to reject their hadith.
- This was further exasperated during the minhah, when the people who persecuted Imam Ahmad and his followers from the ahl al-hadith were Hanafi Mu`tazilites who attributed their opinions to the imams of the madhab.
- There was perhaps an element of jealousy, given the wide popularity and influence of Abu Hanifah and his school.

Suffice it to say, there are responses to the above responses and counter-responses to those responses. In any case, this issue is not of great benefit to the general public and should be limited to academic circles.

[tgs]

I think its unfair to pick on dr. ati as he is a follower of the mujaddid ibn abdul wahhab who are a misunderstood group that have suffered from a lot of propaganda against them from some of the greatest ulema of that time.
These are standard wahhabi views which are deemed good by ulema. Therefore we should leave them to it and not fall for the vicious propaganda.

Making facetious remarks is not going to help win anyone over to the "Traditional" camp.

[Dynasty]

jazakAllah khayran.

[nanyaHgoc]

I see.You want to apply the jarh wal ta'deel to day to day business and want to get me into an emotional trap through it. I would refrain from any discussion on this topic on a public forum as i see no purpose of a discussion like this on a public forum. You can celebrate your victory.

Nothing to celebrate. Just sadness that a brother who made a huge blunder, which is nothing unusual for a human being, finds it so difficult to accept that he has, and is still completely unrepentant. It would have been so much better, if you were only able to crush your nafs and admit your error immediately.

[texbrease]

Nothing to celebrate. Just sadness that a brother who made a huge blunder, which is nothing unusual for a human being, finds it so difficult to accept that he has, and is still completely unrepentant. It would have been so much better, if you were only able to crush your nafs and admit your error immediately.

Brother , had it been a blunder , i would not have been reluctant to accept it. Kindly read the post of brother godilali http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post769188

[irrawnWab]

Hanafis' Response:

Long answer:
If you have a look at the intro of Abu Ghuddah's edition of al-Laknawi's al-Ta`liq al-Mumajjad, he discusses this issue. Also, have a look at the sections unacceptable narrator criticism in al-Laknawi's al-Raf` wa al-Takmil. A quick google search should lead you to the pdf's of these books online.

Short answer:
The principle "jarh mufasssar is given precedence over ta`dil" has certain nuances and parameters regarding which one should be aware. If jarh stems from sectarian bias or personal rivalry, it is not given consideration. Furthermore, if the narrator in question is a widely accepted imam and those who praised him are many and those who have criticize him are few, then in such a case, the criticism is not given consideration.

- The rivalry between ahl al-hadith and ahl al-ra'y is well known.
- Some of the muhaddithin were under the impression that Abu Hanifah and his followers rejected sound ahadith for their own opinion and hence, considered them to be misguided; this misunderstanding on their part lead them to reject their hadith.
- This was further exasperated during the minhah, when the people who persecuted Imam Ahmad and his followers from the ahl al-hadith were Hanafi Mu`tazilites who attributed their opinions to the imams of the madhab.
- There was perhaps an element of jealousy, given the wide popularity and influence of Abu Hanifah and his school.

Suffice it to say, there are responses to the above responses and counter-responses to those responses. In any case, this issue is not of great benefit to the general public and should be limited to academic circles.

for the precise and to the point explanation of Jarh mufassar which is misused and abused these days by hot headed brothers inciting fitnah.